"And these blast points, too accurate for Sandpeople. Only Imperial stormtroopers are so precise."

Independent Flight 77 - Pentagon Event Investigation

Political and Technical Feasibility

Bülow: "This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry."

Let me provide a couple quotes from an interview by Stephan Lebert / Norbert Thomma with Andreas Von Bülow, which appeared in the German newspaper Tagesspiegel, on Jan. 13, 2002

Von Bülow: ...like assailants who, in their preparations, leave tracks behind them like a herd of stampeding elephants? They made payments with credit cards with their own names; they reported to their flight instructors with their own names. They left behind rented cars with flight manuals in Arabic for jumbo jets. They took with them, on their suicide trip, wills and farewell letters, which fall into the hands of the FBI, because they were stored in the wrong place and wrongly addressed. Clues were left behind like in a child's game of hide-and-seek, which were to be followed! There is also the theory of one British flight engineer: According to this, the steering of the planes was perhaps taken out of the pilots' hands, from outside. The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting [automatic pilot system]. This theory says, this technique was abused in this case. That's a theory... [The events of Sept. 11] --fit perfectly in the concept of the armaments industry, the intelligence agencies, the whole military-industrial-academic complex. This is in fact conspicuous. The huge raw materials reserves of the former Soviet Union are now at their disposal, also the pipeline routes and--I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry.

[Von Bülow former State Secretary (a high position one level below that) at the Ministery Of Defense from 1976-1980 and Minister for Research And Technology from 1980-1982. He was also member of the Bundestag (the German parlament) from 1969-1994 and member of the Bundestag's control commission for the German secret services for some time. The informations above were taken from his book "Im Namen des Staates" (ISBN3-492-23050-4; don't know if there's an English translation of it). The title means "In the name of the State" and the book describes illegal activities of several secret services, including the CIA, on more than 600 pages]

For Immediate Release

Political and Technical Feasibility

It is our latest conclusion that a 'drone' on an automated landing approach is responsible for the Pentagon event.

This operation IS technically feasible.

This operation IS politically feasible.

Remote Recovery of Aircraft Technology

A diagram illustrating the Future Air Navigation System
Although this comes from an overseas source, it illustrates the concept well.

Testing

GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM (GPS) USE FOR ALL-WEATHER LANDINGS
The aviation industry is investigating the use of differential GPS concepts for precision landings in bad weather to improve the safety and reliability of air travel. The GPS is a constellation of 24 satellites used to determine aircraft position anywhere on or near the Earth. When a ground-based GPS receiver is used to provide a 'differential' correction signal, an aircraft's position can be determined within a foot or two. Boeing partnered with NASA to examine GPS Landing System concepts and evaluate their accuracy, integrity, and continuity of function in automatic landings of airplanes. The team tested several prototype GPS Landing System concepts using NASA 557 during 226 automatic approaches and landings. The data obtained is being used to validate GPS Landing System simulations and to define system certification requirements. (NASA Boeing 757)

Implementation

The 757-200 flight deck, designed for two-crew member operation, pioneered the use of digital electronics and advanced displays. Those offer increased reliability and advanced features compared to older electro-mechanical instruments. A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload. The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer. The captain and the first officer each have a pair of electronic displays for primary flight instrumentation. The electronic attitude director indicator displays airplane attitude and autopilot guidance cues. The electronic horizontal situation indicator displays a video map of navigation aids, airports, and the planned airplane route and can display a weather-radar image over these ground features. The engine indicating and crew alerting system, often called EICAS, monitors and displays engine performance and airplane system status before takeoff. It also provides caution and warning alerts to the flight crew if necessary. EICAS monitoring also aids ground crews by providing maintenance information. The 757-200 is available with a wind shear detection system that alerts flight crews and provides flight-path guidance to cope with it. Wind shear, caused by a violent down-burst of air that changes speed and direction as it strikes the ground, can interfere with a normal takeoff and landing. Flight decks of the 757 and 767 are nearly identical and both aircraft have a common type-rating. Pilots qualified to fly one of the aircraft also can fly the other with only minimal additional familiarization. Built-in test equipment helps ground crews troubleshoot avionics and airplane systems quickly for easier maintenance than on earlier aircraft. Structural maintenance needs are reduced, owing to new methods of corrosion protection including application of special sealants and enameling of major portions of the fuselage. (Boeing 757-200 Flight Deck)

If the pilot is not in direct control and another mechanism is controlling (not just receiving passive signals or sensing) the craft, especially from GPS, it is effectively 'remotely' controlled. The link between ground crews, GPS and aircraft have been established. It's not a cruise control and it's not a radio controlled toy car. We're talking FULL avionics AND navigation from take-off to touch down controlled and guided by a known and documented satellite link. "A fully integrated flight management computer system (FMCS) provides for automatic guidance and control of the 757-200 from immediately after takeoff to final approach and landing. Linking together digital processors controlling navigation, guidance and engine thrust, the flight management system assures that the aircraft flies the most efficient route and flight profile for reduced fuel consumption, flight time and crew workload. The precision of global positioning satellite (GPS) system navigation, automated air traffic control functions, and advanced guidance and communications features are now available as part of the new Future Air Navigation System (FANS) flight management computer." This technology could effectively PREVENT the hijack of aircraft. Any deviation from the course would trigger the system and someone would know about it. We're working to verify if American Airlines does have this technology installed in any of its fleet. Suppose they do have this technology installed... Why not key in a coordinate or code to have a hijacked aircraft automatically land at a predesignated, properly prepared airfield prepped for such eventualities. I can only assume that our "planners" do indeed think in terms of hostile contingencies and have this scenario worked out. This all begs the questions: why wasn't this critical technology used, or was it abused?

A new era in aviation was initiated on May 22, 2002, as the X-45A Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle (UCAV) technology demonstrator made its first flight at Edwards AFB, Calif. During the 14-minute flight, which was termed a complete success, the X-45A reached a speed of 195 knots and an altitude of 7,500 feet. Flight characteristics and basic aspects of aircraft operations, particularly the command and control link between the aircraft and the mission-control station, were successfully demonstrated. This historic step marks the beginning of flight testing of the first unmanned system designed from inception for combat. Boeing Phantom Works

Contingency Planners at Work

EXPOSING THE LIE

From National Security Advisor Dr. Condoleezza Rice to the President of the United States George W. Bush, a lie was maintained in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001 - Nobody in our government could have envisioned using aircraft as weapons to fly into buildings. I wonder if someone's resignation is in order...

Proof: "Discussed for some 40 years"

Homeland Defense and the Transportation Industry: The Civil Aviation and Surface Transportation Sectors.

In the last meeting (May 2001), participants discussed Washington and New York as the most likely targets, even discussing a scenario in which a plane is hijacked and crashed into a high-value target. In fact, this scenario had been discussed for some 40 years, the supposed target typically a nuclear reactor.Denver Council on Foreign Relations Reports

Proof: NORAD Anticipated and Prepared For Aircraft Event

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons
By Steven Komarow and Tom Squitieri, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.

One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon — but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic, NORAD and Defense officials say. (usa today)

Proof: The Pentagon Anticipated and Prepared For Aircraft Event

Washington, D.C.,Nov. 3, 2000 - The fire and smoke from the downed passenger aircraft billows from the Pentagon courtyard. Defense Protective Services Police seal the crash sight. Army medics, nurses and doctors scramble to organize aid. An Arlington Fire Department chief dispatches his equipment to the affected areas. Don Abbott, of Command Emergency Response Training, walks over to the Pentagon and extinguishes the flames. The Pentagon was a model and the "plane crash" was a simulated one. The Pentagon Mass Casualty Exercise, as the crash was called, was just one of several scenarios that emergency response teams were exposed to Oct. 24-26 in the Office of the Secretaries of Defense conference room. On Oct. 24, there was a mock terrorist incident at the Pentagon Metro stop and a construction accident to name just some of the scenarios that were practiced to better prepare local agencies for real incidents. (Contingency Planning Pentagon MASCAL Exercise)

http://wbz4.com/news/StoryFolder/story_704640386_html
Agency Planned Exercise On Sept. 11 Built Around A Plane Crashing
Into A Building
Aug 21, 2002 10:00 pm US/Eastern
(AP)-(Washington)-In what the government describes as a bizarre
coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an
exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft crashed
into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism --
it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Va.-based National Reconnaissance
Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small
corporate jet crashed into one of the four towers at the
agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical
failure.
The agency is about four miles from the runways of Washington
Dulles International Airport.
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees'
ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. To
simulate the damage from the plane, some stairwells and exits
were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to
evacuate the building.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to
involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said.
"As soon as the real world events began, we canceled the
exercise."
Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been
planned for several months, he said.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 -- the
Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon --
took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before
the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40
a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's
spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the
CIA.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at
agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential
personnel, Haubold said.
An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in
Chicago first noted the exercise.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as
chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says,
"On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team
... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the
emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were
to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario
would come true in a dramatic way that day."
The conference is being run by the National Law Enforcement and
Security Institute.

HISTORICAL PRECEDENT: NORTHWOODS and S11

WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW...

One thing that must be understood is that the powers that be do indeed plan on staging real events for terror or political influence, to further a hidden agenda. This has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt by the release of documents pertaining to Operation Northwoods. This kind of thinking has been going on for a while... since 1962 as demonstrated by the Northwoods document.

This is much more than hot, anti-Communist rhetoric during the sixties. This is a prime example, a historical precedent for the intentional staging of terror events for political motivation. It is a plan to use state resources to covertly conduct violent acts against the population to further a war agenda. This comes from the Joint Chiefs. As far as we're concerned this is about as close to a 'smoking-gun,' for the legitimacy of much conspiracy related research, as we've seen in a long while.

Here is the ABC news article

20010501
Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe

N E W Y O R K, May 1 In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban emigres, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba's then new leader, communist Fidel Castro.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

Details of the plans are described in Body of Secrets (Doubleday), a new book by investigative reporter James Bamford about the history of America's largest spy agency, the National Security Agency. However, the plans were not connected to the agency, he notes.

The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy's defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years.

"These were Joint Chiefs of Staff documents. The reason these were held secret for so long is the Joint Chiefs never wanted to give these up because they were so embarrassing," Bamford told ABCNEWS.com.

"The whole point of a democracy is to have leaders responding to the public will, and here this is the complete reverse, the military trying to trick the American people into a war that they want but that nobody else wants."

Gunning for War

The documents show "the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government," writes Bamford.

The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba, the documents show.

Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, "the objective is to provide irrevocable proof ? that the fault lies with the Communists et all Cuba [sic]."

The plans were motivated by an intense desire among senior military leaders to depose Castro, who seized power in 1959 to become the first communist leader in the Western Hemisphere ? only 90 miles from U.S. shores.

The earlier CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles had been a disastrous failure, in which the military was not allowed to provide firepower.The military leaders now wanted a shot at it.

"The whole thing was so bizarre," says Bamford, noting public and international support would be needed for an invasion, but apparently neither the American public, nor the Cuban public, wanted to see U.S. troops deployed to drive out Castro.

Reflecting this, the U.S. plan called for establishing prolonged military ? not democratic ? control over the island nation after the invasion.

"That's what we're supposed to be freeing them from," Bamford says. "The only way we would have succeeded is by doing exactly what the Russians were doing all over the world, by imposing a government by tyranny, basically what we were accusing Castro himself of doing."

'Over the Edge'

The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.

Whether the Joint Chiefs' plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job.

The secret plans came at a time when there was distrust in the military leadership about their civilian leadership, with leaders in the Kennedy administration viewed as too liberal, insufficiently experienced and soft on communism. At the same time, however, there real were concerns in American society about their military overstepping its bounds.

There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.

And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a "considerable danger" in the "education and propaganda activities of military personnel" had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn't get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford.

"Although no one in Congress could have known at the time," he writes, "Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge."

Even after Lemnitzer was gone, he writes, the Joint Chiefs continued to plan "pretext" operations at least through 1963.

One idea was to create a war between Cuba and another Latin American country so that the United States could intervene. Another was to pay someone in the Castro government to attack U.S. forces at the Guantanamo naval base ? an act, which Bamford notes, would have amounted to treason. And another was to fly low level U-2 flights over Cuba, with the intention of having one shot down as a pretext for a war.

"There really was a worry at the time about the military going off crazy and they did, but they never succeeded, but it wasn't for lack of trying," he says.

After 40 Years

Ironically, the documents came to light, says Bamford, in part because of the 1992 Oliver Stone film JFK, which examined the possibility of a conspiracy behind the assassination of President Kennedy.

As public interest in the assassination swelled after JFK's release, Congress passed a law designed to increase the public's access to government records related to the assassination.

The author says a friend on the board tipped him off to the documents.

Afraid of a congressional investigation, Lemnitzer had ordered all Joint Chiefs documents related to the Bay of Pigs destroyed, says Bamford. But somehow, these remained.

"The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after," says Bamford. (abc)

I think you need to read the Northwoods material more carefully and remember its not going to state "kill americans" outright. Please be reasonable... What's going to justify military intervention other than the loss of friendly life and property?

"... which place the United States in the position of suffering justifiable grievance." p.5.pdf

"... should be developed to focus all efforts on a specific ultimate objective which would provide adequate justification for us military intervention. Such a plan would enable a logical build-up of incidents to be combined with other seemingly unrelated events to camouflage the ultimate objective and create the necessary impression on Cuban rashness and irresponsibility on a large scale, directed at other countries as well as the United States.

"...The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere." p.8.pdf [just replace Cuba with Militant-Islam]

"...the ultimate objective is overt military intervention, it is recommended that primary responsibility for developing military and para-military aspects of the plan for both overt and covert military operations be assigned the Joint Chiefs of Staff." p.9.pdf

"The courses of action which follow are a preliminary submission suitable only for planning purposes. ...they are intended to provide a point of departure for the development of a single, integrated, time-phased plan. Such a plan would permit the evaluation of individual projects within the context of cumulative, correlated actions designed to lead inexorably to the objective of adequate justification for US military intervention..." p.10.pdf

Pages 11 and 12 specifically call for riots, mortar shelling of friendly bases, sabotaging and sinking of ships. Section 3 a. "We could blow up a US ship" Section 3 b. "we could blow up a drone" Section 4 "We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington."

DETAILS SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE

"Conduct funerals for mock victims..."

"An [aircraft] properly painted would convince... However, reasonable copies of the [aircraft] could be produced from US resources in about three months."

a. An aircraft at [AFB] would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA propriety organization in the [local] area. At a designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with the selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual registered aircraft would be converted to a drone.

b. Take off times of the drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow rendezvous [near area]. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to a minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at [AFB] where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan, when over [required area]... the transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.

"...would disburse [aircraft] parts..."

It's OK to lie to the public

Slightly out of context, but I know you're smart enough to read between the lines and follow the examples on this one. Who better to play deception than a known master?

Theodore Olson, US Solicitor General

THIS PRESIDENT THINKS OUR IGNORANCE IS BLISS
The United States Government's top lawyer has said that officials have the right to lie to American citizens, telling the US Supreme Court that misleading statements are sometimes needed to protect foreign policy interests. "It's easy to imagine an infinite number of situations where the government might legitimately give out false information," the Solicitor-General, Theodore Olson, told the court on Monday. "It's an unfortunate reality that the issuance of incomplete information and even misinformation by government may sometimes be perceived as necessary to protect vital interests." But Jennifer Harbury, an American widow who was misled for years by American officials concerning the whereabouts and condition of her husband, a Guatemalan rebel leader, disagreed. She told the court that US officials should be held liable if they lie... Ms Harbury, a lawyer, has alleged that the US officials lied to her to conceal the involvement of a Central Intelligence Agency informant in the torture and murder of her husband. She argued that she should have the right to sue the officials responsible for the alleged cover-up... The US officials involved say they never intentionally lied to Ms Harbury. Instead, they withheld certain information or simply refused to search for information in order to protect American operations in Guatemala... Although the case centres on events that unfolded 10 years ago, the court's ruling could have a substantial impact on the war on terrorism. The justices must decide how much information US officials - who are entrusted with foreign policy secrets - must divulge to American citizens. Since the September 11 attacks, the Bush Administration has made several moves to clamp down on the flow of information. For example, last November the Attorney-General, John Ashcroft, ordered closer reviews of which documents federal agencies release under the Freedom of Information Act. (yahoo) (smh)

Theodore Olson's wife, Barbara Olson, Calls From Flight 77

Theodore Olson directly conceals S11 investigation data

White House Seeks Secrecy on Detainee
GINA HOLLAND
20040105

WASHINGTON - In an extraordinary request, the Bush administration asked the Supreme Court on Monday to let it keep its arguments secret in a case involving an immigrant's challenge of his treatment after the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

Mohamed Kamel Bellahouel wants the high court to consider whether the government acted improperly by secretly jailing him after the attacks and keeping his court fight private. He is supported by more than 20 journalism organizations and media companies.

Solicitor General Theodore Olson told justices in a one-paragraph filing that "this matter pertains to information that is required to be kept under seal."

Justices sometimes are asked to keep parts of cases private because of information sensitive for national security or other reasons, but it's unusual for an entire filing to be kept secret.

Lucy A. Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she was disappointed by the government's request.

"The idea that there is nothing that could be filed publicly is really ridiculous," she said. "It just emphasizes our point that we're living in frightening times. People can be arrested, thrown in jail and have secret court proceedings, and we know absolutely nothing about it."

The court will decide later whether to consider Bellahouel's appeal and at the same time whether to allow the secret filing. Justices will be able to review the government's private arguments.

Bellahouel, an Algerian who worked as a waiter in South Florida, came under FBI (news - web sites) scrutiny because hijackers Mohamed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi dined where he worked in the weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

He was among hundreds of foreigners rounded up after the hijackings. The government has refused to release names and information about the detentions, arguing that a blanket secrecy policy is needed to protect national security.

The Supreme Court rejected an appeal last year from newspapers that sought information about the detentions. Bellahouel's case asks the justices to consider whether the government violated the nation's long tradition of open court proceedings.

Lower courts kept private the existence of the case. Olson's filing deletes the name of the appeals court that ruled against Bellahouel.

Bellahouel, who is free on $10,000 bond, is known in court papers only as M.K.B. Because of a mistake at the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (news - web sites) in Atlanta, the M.K.B. records were briefly made public. A Miami legal newspaper reported his identity and said that he was released after five months, and after he had been taken to Alexandria, Va., to testify before a federal grand jury.